Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
TracingWoodgrains launches a defense of Manifest's controversial reputation, all without betraying a basic understanding of what the word "controversial" means.
The author appears to now be planning a hitpiece on David Gerard:
With apologies for resurrecting an old thread: I am an independent writer exploring the potential to write an article focused on Gerard’s Wikipedia-related history. I’ve reviewed the information here and the on-wiki behavior and controversies I can find, but if anyone has information I may have missed or other thoughts to share, I would welcome direct messages or replies. In particular, if anyone with an informed perspective is willing to chat at length on the record, I’d appreciate it. I’m an outsider to the whole Wikipedia ecosystem and trying to parse through thousands of pages of history and edits looking for key moments gets rather dense–it’s quite easy for me to miss relevant info.
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11466&start=50#p355881
I, for one, am just psyched to see what Jesse Singal’s research assistant is going to tell us about the evils of Wikipedia.
“wikipediocracy”? fucking seriously?
for all the good bits that wikipedia has (and there are notably many), a rulership is definitely not among that list afaik. wtf.
Bill Cole 
@grumpybozo@toad.social@froztbyte @sneerclub Well, if the vast majority of people in a community share a consensus reality and basic principles, you don’t need a formal governance structure to oppress hallucinating sociopaths.